Board approves continuance 6-0

By David Persons

Trail-Gazette

Posted:
12/17/2015 11:50:27 AM MST

The Estes Park Town Board voted 6-0 at a special meeting late Tuesday afternoon to grant a continuance for consideration of amendments to a special review for the proposed EPMC Wellness Training Center at the Stanley Hotel.

The continuance was extended to the town board's Jan. 26, 2016 meeting.

Estes Park Mayor Bill Pinkham was out of state and unable to attend the meeting.

While the meeting was intended to only take a few minutes to grant the continuance, the meeting lasted nearly an hour as the board heard from Greg Rosener, who spoke on behalf of Stanley Hotel officials and a parade of citizens who objected to the granting of a continuance.

The special meeting was originally scheduled to consider a recommendation from the Estes Valley Planning Commission on several amendments to the special review for the wellness center. Among those amendments was the relocation of the wellness center itself into the accommodations building that is currently under construction. Another amendment sought an 11-foot height variance to make way for an unplanned fourth floor to meet the space requirements for wellness programs that EPMC planned to have.

The Estes Valley Planning Commission, which met last week, voted to recommend denial of the amendments.

Rosener explained to the town board on Tuesday that Stanley Hotel officials were seeking a continuance until the second board meeting in March - March 22. He was then asked by trustees why the continuance is needed.

"Because it was very evident from the planning commission meeting that we didn't meet the hurdles that the planning commission was looking for," Rosener said. "I will say we were never told that we had to meet those hurdles even though we had regular weekly meetings with planning staff from the time we made the application.

"So, that being said, when we got up and made our presentation, we were not aware that was going to be a major threshold. So, even though we have demonstrated that there has been mitigating design ... that wasn't just a design that was tossed up. We have to go back and make sure we prepare this adequately and prepare it so you people have more information in front of you than we actually submitted to the planning commission."

Trustee Bob Holcomb asked why the specific date of March 22 was chosen. Rosener said that date was selected by the Stanley Hotel attorney.

Trustee John Ericson wanted to know why the date had to be March 22 and why it couldn't be another date.

"It was my understanding that when the continuance option was brought to the table, it was thought: 'Let's work with an outside date so we didn't come back and hold the town up ... you, as trustees, in your decision-making and also the rest of the citizens of the community and also our partners at EPMC. So we targeted a date ... Expectation is that we can beat that date. We won't know that until after probably the first of the year."

Rosener then elaborated on the need for an earlier meeting date.

"Our full intent is to pull that (date) as much forward as possible because it affects our construction schedule," he said. "In terms of construction, the construction of the hotel is continuing. But, because of what you allowed us to do ... in terms of submitting a development (plan) under the time frame that we did, we were able to work with town building staff and their outside consultants to review our construction plans to make sure that there was adequate structure in the building which was completely redesigned ... that there was adequate structure so that at some point in time that fourth story could be built.

"I don't believe that town staff would have accepted us to come forward and say: 'Can you review these plans when there is not even an application for a new development.' That seemed to be problematic.

"What you allowed us to do is go back and change the structure so that we can continue in the construction process and not have to tear other pieces and parts off what we are already building so a building inspector can say: 'What did you really do there?' That was very helpful in our timing.

"The hotel is continuing. We fully expect to still make that May 1 date that Mr. Cullen (Stanley Hotel owner John Cullen) mentioned to you the last time he spoke before you. We wouldn't have been able to do that if we wouldn't have been able to move forward with an expedited process."

Trustee Ron Norris pointed out that the request for an expedited special review process was originally made out of financial concerns and short deadlines. So why now, Norris questioned, is it OK to delay the process 80 or more days?

"In order to satisfy the needs of EPMC," Rosener said. "They needed additional square footage. The only place we figured it would go ... based on an analysis that our team made ... is to put an additional 3,500 square feet on the top level. The only way we could do that was if we knew we were building a building that will accept a fourth story.

"The building was never originally designed that way. The building was designed for only two stories above the grade. For construction purposes, things really change when you go to the next level."

Norris said he still didn't understand why everyone was told that funding is critical.

"So what happened is, because of the actions you allowed us to take, we were able to get this back on track for a May 1 opening," Rosener said. "What it doesn't do, it does not allow the wellness center to be open and operating. The middle of May or first of June was what the original plan was. The EPMC (part) will be delayed two or three months for the finish of that project. We can still proceed if you agree to give us our height increase at whatever the next board meeting is. Then it doesn't delay our construction.

"It delays part of the finishing that occurs in the wellness center. The funding that is for that portion, i.e. the wellness center, is separate. It is not tied to the hotel. If we had delayed the hotel because we didn't know ... we weren't given permission to construct something that could take a fourth floor and we delayed that until we got an agreement on that, then we basically tell our people to go home for six weeks or two months."

Norris then asked Rosener if it wasn't true that the funding urgency was for the hotel.

"Yes, it's specifically for the hotel," he said.

Trustee Bob Holcomb asked Rosener if there was a Plan B if the height variance is not granted.

"Plan B is we will have a building that if we ever have solar storms at over 200 mph, you want to be in that building because it is going to be built (very) strong," Rosener said.

Norris then commented that the building without a fourth floor would be a "stronger version of a three-story building already approved."

Rosener agreed. "Nothing changes."

Nelson then asked what the probability is for EPMC being able to do the wellness center in the building.

"None. That's what I am being told," Rosener said. "We will proceed (with the hotel) and whenever EPMC is able to raise the money, however they're going to do that, they still have their pad site."

Norris asked if the original pad site for the wellness center would remain open for a wellness center.

"Planning staff did approach us about relinquishing rights to that deed-restricted site," Rosener said. And, we said unequivocally, No. That pad site remains one way or the other."

After some discussion about having the continuance extended to Jan. 12 or Jan. 26, Rosener said while he would like to have the meeting as soon as possible, he would prefer Jan. 26.

Estes Park Town Administrator Frank Lancaster then joined the conversation to clarify what the board should be focusing on.

"The use has to stay the same as in the application," Lancaster said, "as well as the height and the rest of the requirements. If this applicant wants to change the use to something else, or modify the design, or modify anything like that, then it is a new application and goes back to the planning commission to consider as a new application.

"You can't start with one application, go through the planning commission, change it, and come back with something else by the time you come to the board."

In response, Rosener reiterated what his concerns were.

"We thought we had everything buttoned up," he said. "Planning staff came back prior to the planning commission meeting and said we had not met the criteria for which we had not prepared and which means going back and making sure that we fill those holes that we can fill but we didn't for that presentation."

Several residents spoke out against the continuance.

"I feel strongly, if you, in fact, grant a continuance that all that happens should be the original building plan, disregarding the fact of extra strength and other structure involved," said Ed Hayek, 611 Findley Court.

"The other issue that I have with the continuance and some of Mr. Rosener's statements concerns generating information of the next presentation. And, it would be my conjecture, that if this information actually existed and was actually reviewed at the time they were deciding what was feasible and what wasn't, they would already exist and be easy to present. Why do we need all this time to re-engineer? That's after the fact."

Dick Spielman, 584 Audubon Street, said he was confused about the economic urgency of the project.

"I have followed this thing to the planning commission meeting and through the paper and everything," Spielman said. "I could say I have a teeny, teeny, little problem here. As (planning commissioner) Steve Murphree, I think, so aptly said at the planning commission meeting: 'I don't understand'

"John Cullen stood up here and tried to argue before the planning commission that this was about economics and he understood that the planning commission couldn't do that. Are we still talking about economics here? I mean, weren't they claiming hardship? We've got to get this done before March, otherwise we won't have the rooms to rent to the people we promised them to. Is that still on the table? Or, what's going on? I don't understand. Can anyone clarify that?"

Rebecca Urquhart, 1955 Homestead Lane, cited two reasons that the board should consider when deciding to grant a continuance.

"I am not completely opposed to having the continuance to Jan. 12," Urquhart said. "But, I'm a little bit taken aback by the statement that was made to the trustees that he (Cullen) had an absolute drop dead date of Dec. 18.

"So, I think there is some misrepresentation that needs to be taken into consideration. There was also another statement and I have read the staff report in great detail. I heard Mr. Rosener say they need a continuance because, gee, they were surprised the planning commission thought they had to show there were no feasible alternatives. It was right in the staff report. And, their own attorney tried to address those specific questions.

"So, I think this is a little misrepresentation to say we didn't know we were going to have to show there are no feasible alternatives. I really don't think these are grounds for a continuance.

"In their own letter, they said they mostly wanted a continuance because Mayor Pinkham wasn't here. And, I kind of wonder why he (Cullen) needs that swing vote?"

Eric Waples, 1519-H Raven Circle, believed there were no grounds for a continuance.

"This entire expedited process was forced upon the public by the applicant," Waples said. "Applicant knew what the code was. They knew the rules and staff was very thorough telling applicant what they needed. Their neglect, or their incompetence, of providing the kinds of information they should have provided, is entirely their fault. No one else's. The planning commission understood that.

"I read John Cullen's letter also. Let's call a spade a spade. The real issue, probably why we're here ... you've heard Mr. Rosener's explanation of why he thinks we're here asking for a continuance. I think we're here because Mayor Pinkham learned he couldn't vote from New Hampshire. He couldn't call his vote in and Mr. Cullen found that out and he was concerned about having a 3-3 split and not having the mayor's vote.

"That's my perception of why we're here."

Waples went on to chastise the board for even considering a continuance.

"What is not a reasonable option is to stick your head in the sand and pretend you have a serious code problem that you need to correct and you're doing nothing about it," Waples said. "You want to continue this review which is based on a standard that no one understood throughout the process and now you want to continue in the same vein without have a clear legal opinion to base it on.

"So my argument is the continuance should be rejected because you're using the wrong standard. Until you resolve that, it doesn't make sense to continue a process that may be legally indefensible. This is a quasi-judicial process. It's not a political decision. As a board, if this were a political decision, you have every right as elected officials to make foolish decisions and not be liable, civilly or criminally, for doing that. That's what elected officials do. We know that. We have lots of experience with that.

"This entire expedited process looks like a sham."

Following public comment, the board discussed briefly the possibility of not granting a continuance.

Lancaster recommended against that, saying many people believed it would be continued and it wouldn't be fair to them.

"The norm is to grant a continuance," Lancaster said. "It's very common. We do that with a lot of applications. We're not just doing that for the Stanley. It's not a special favor. In fact, it would be unusual if we didn't."

The board, after a little more discussion, voted to continue the special review to Jan. 26.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.